My Progress

"MU" wrote in message
...


Goodbye, little child.

*plonk*



The irony. You're publicly plonking someone, and calling them a little
child? One thing I can say for you, you never change. LOL

Cheri

On 2009-04-30, MU wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:44:49 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku wrote:

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not

``Same results, except not.'' Bull**** equivocation, combined with
blind guessing.

Goodbye, little child.

*plonk*

A pointless overture by someone who has no real killfile, only at best a mental
one.

I see you have not addressed the technical content of this little child's
posting.

This is simply how you behave when you're intellectually cornered.

On 2009-04-30, MM wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.

Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
though there is a big difference of calories consumed

This is a strawman argument against the two pound diet.

Chung may be a loon, but the idea has merit.

Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is,
there is nothing magic about two pounds.

The point is that mass of food can be used as an estimate of intake and
a control parameter, and that there may be advantages to doing it that
way---advantages such as the diet is as simple as possible, while still
being tied to closed-loop parameter control.

Of course, if you drastically vary the average caloric density of the food,
then you are violating the spirit of the idea, right? I.e. basically cheating.

Can you name any reasonable self-administered diet system in which cheating is
absolutely impossible?

Think about this: many people don't even think twice about using their body
mass as an estimate of how fat they are, and as a feedback parameter for
tracking progress. If body mass can be used a feedback parameter, why can't
food mass be used as the corresponding control parameter?

If you're measuring body mass on the feedback side, rather than precise
compartmentalized body composition, does it even make sense to compute precise
calories on the control side?

the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would
seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories
than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.

Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most calorie-dense
foods are fats, at 9 kcal/g. So the most energy you can get from 900 grams
of food is 8100 kcal.

So work with me for a second: if you use mass to estimate energy intake, you do
in fact have a parameter which establishes an upper bound on energy intake.
The energy intake cannot exceed around nine times multiplied by the mass in
grams, right? I.e. this is actually a sanely behaved parameter. Plug
it into a control loop and it should work. You may find that by eating 907 g
of peanut butter per day, you are not losing weight, or even gaining. I.e. for
the value of the control parameter being 907, you find that the feedback
parameter is not moving in a favorable direction. So try a lower value, like
750 g, et cetera. Eventually, you will discover the values of the control
parameter that change the direction of the feedback parameter.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve that people can do well on two pounds of a
variety of normal food with some sane average caloric density that is nowhere
near 9. Suppose your food has an average density of 2.0 kcal/g. Thus 907
grams of it is 1814 kcal. That's a decent weight loss energy intake for an
adult male. A caloric density of 2.0 kcal/g isn't particularly low, nor is it
particularly high. It's quite representative of normal food.

Chung isn't really saying anything other than: eat a reasonable amount of
normal food. That's not enough to qualify him as sane, or even intelligent, of
course.

But remember the message from 1980's seatbelt education?

``You can learn a lot from a dummy''.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:09:28 -0500, Kaz Kylheku wrote
(in article ):

Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is,
there is nothing magic about two pounds.

Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no difference
whether you reduce the number of calories or the sizes of the portions. A
successful and easy diet is simple to eat 3/4 or 2/3 or 1/2 of the usual
portion sizes that you normally eat. The problem with long term success is
that people go back to the calories or portion sizes they ate before and gain
the weight back.

wrote:
Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no difference
whether you reduce the number of calories or the sizes of the portions. A
successful and easy diet is simple to eat 3/4 or 2/3 or 1/2 of the usual
portion sizes that you normally eat. The problem with long term success is
that people go back to the calories or portion sizes they ate before and gain
the weight back.


This is utter nonsense! I am eating more calories on South Beach than when I
was calorie counting, therefore, my portions are much larger. All calories are
not equal and do not work the same way in all bodies. For obese people with
hyperinsulinism, there is no doubt that too many refined carbs, whether eaten
in small or large portions, will ultimately retain fat and perpetuate the
hyperinsulin cycle in which the body tries to process a carb barrage at every
meal. The size of adipose tissue and fat cells brings carb processing to a near
standstill, which is why anyone with an abdominal protrusion and elevated
fasting glucose levels can benefit from reducing or eliminating most refined
carbs.

Orlando

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:33:37 -0500, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no
difference
whether you reduce the number of calories or the sizes of the portions. A
successful and easy diet is simple to eat 3/4 or 2/3 or 1/2 of the usual
portion sizes that you normally eat. The problem with long term success is
that people go back to the calories or portion sizes they ate before and
gain
the weight back.


This is utter nonsense! I am eating more calories on South Beach than when I
was calorie counting, therefore, my portions are much larger. All calories
are
not equal and do not work the same way in all bodies. For obese people with
hyperinsulinism, there is no doubt that too many refined carbs, whether eaten

in small or large portions, will ultimately retain fat and perpetuate the
hyperinsulin cycle in which the body tries to process a carb barrage at every

meal. The size of adipose tissue and fat cells brings carb processing to a
near
standstill, which is why anyone with an abdominal protrusion and elevated
fasting glucose levels can benefit from reducing or eliminating most refined
carbs.

Orlando

Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion
sizes.

My comments were in regards to diets based on reducing the calories through
smaller portions and lower calories.

None of these diets have high long term success rates because people do not
follow them long term and go back to their old eating habits. Each of these
diets also have their long term success stories in those who can maintain
them.

The fact that there are so many different diets, often means one is not
better than all the others in losing and maintaining weight loss.

wrote:
Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion
sizes.

I'm glad you read for content.

My comments were in regards to diets based on reducing the calories through
smaller portions and lower calories.

You didn't specify that your comments only pertained to calorie focused diets.

None of these diets have high long term success rates because people do not
follow them long term and go back to their old eating habits.

This happens because people really want to be eating as they always have. The
most effective diet is therefore the closest to their old eating habits, either
in terms of food type or portion size. Someone terrified of giving up most
carbs might opt for a calory counting diet where they can still have carbs, but
in smaller portions. Another might like meat so much that they especially prize
a diet like Atkins or South Beach that encourages meat consumption without
portion limitations.

Each of these diets also have their long term success stories in those who can maintain
them.
The fact that there are so many different diets, often means one is not
better than all the others in losing and maintaining weight loss.

Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what
they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple. For big
eaters, no flavor of a calory counting diet will work because they'll always
feel hungry. For carb cravers, a calory counting diet similarly will not work
because they can never eat enough carbs to satisfy their cravings. For people
who love fatty foods, South Beach will please them much less than Atkins.

The problem with the diet industry is that it tends to appeal to people's sense
of healthy eating and moralizing sermons about obesity's social ills rather
than focus on what people actually enjoy eating. Part of the reason that people
gorge on low fat foods is that in order to reduce fat, flavor is sacrified. So,
they keep chasing down a flavor experience that will never come.

Orlando

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:25:54 -0500, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote
(in article ):

Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what
they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple. For big
eaters, no flavor of a calory counting diet will work because they'll always
feel hungry. For carb cravers, a calory counting diet similarly will not work

because they can never eat enough carbs to satisfy their cravings. For people

who love fatty foods, South Beach will please them much less than Atkins.

The problem with the diet industry is that it tends to appeal to people's
sense
of healthy eating and moralizing sermons about obesity's social ills rather
than focus on what people actually enjoy eating. Part of the reason that
people
gorge on low fat foods is that in order to reduce fat, flavor is sacrified.
So,
they keep chasing down a flavor experience that will never come.

Orlando

Well said.

Also, if you can increase your activity to a level you can maintain, that can
help.

Also, it seems if you try to lose too much weight too fast the body responds
by lowering the metabolic rate which makes it harder to lose weight.

Everything in moderation, even moderation, because in some rare occasions the
fate of the world may depend on having that piece of cake and that is the
least anyone can do for their fellow mankind ;-)

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:52:57 -0500, MM wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:45:48 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:32:38 -0500, MM wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.

Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
though there is a big difference of calories consumed ..... they both have
the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat ....
would
seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more
calories
than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.

Perhaps you could inform us of just what is your "extensive experience" ?

Asked and answered the first paragraph, Mr. Disingenuous.

As to "extensive experience", Google is your multiple friend.

Still waiting to hear if the calories of the two pounds of food eaten if one
follows Chung's 2PD make any difference in a person's final weight.

Asked and answered.

My above extreme example was a way to try and get that answered.

You got your answer.

Will see if the question is answered if calories make any difference in a
person's final weight if eats two pounds of food a day.

Answers are simple. Even to a simpleton, eh?
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

On Fri, 1 May 2009 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2009-04-30, MM wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.

Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
though there is a big difference of calories consumed

This is a strawman argument against the two pound diet.

Chung may be a loon, but the idea has merit.

Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is,
there is nothing magic about two pounds.

Anything that works universally has a certainty of "majick" involved in
it.

The point is that mass of food can be used as an estimate of intake and
a control parameter, and that there may be advantages to doing it that
way---advantages such as the diet is as simple as possible, while still
being tied to closed-loop parameter control.

There you go.

Of course, if you drastically vary the average caloric density of the food,
then you are violating the spirit of the idea, right? I.e. basically cheating.

A cheat which in both my experience and Chung's that simply does not
work in any real life situation. However, a phool who is out to disprove
the 2PD at the risk of his health could, theoretically, do so. Then
again, this is not a real world situation either.

Can you name any reasonable self-administered diet system in which cheating is
absolutely impossible?

No.

Think about this: many people don't even think twice about using their body
mass as an estimate of how fat they are, and as a feedback parameter for
tracking progress. If body mass can be used a feedback parameter, why can't
food mass be used as the corresponding control parameter?

It can.

If you're measuring body mass on the feedback side, rather than precise
compartmentalized body composition, does it even make sense to compute precise
calories on the control side?

None since it is, in a real life situation, nearly impossible to compute
ingested (used) cals.

Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most calorie-dense
foods are fats, at 9 kcal/g. So the most energy you can get from 900 grams
of food is 8100 kcal.

Yes.

So work with me for a second: if you use mass to estimate energy intake, you do
in fact have a parameter which establishes an upper bound on energy intake.
The energy intake cannot exceed around nine times multiplied by the mass in
grams, right? I.e. this is actually a sanely behaved parameter. Plug
it into a control loop and it should work. You may find that by eating 907 g
of peanut butter per day, you are not losing weight, or even gaining. I.e. for
the value of the control parameter being 907, you find that the feedback
parameter is not moving in a favorable direction. So try a lower value, like
750 g, et cetera. Eventually, you will discover the values of the control
parameter that change the direction of the feedback parameter.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve that people can do well on two pounds of a
variety of normal food with some sane average caloric density that is nowhere
near 9. Suppose your food has an average density of 2.0 kcal/g. Thus 907
grams of it is 1814 kcal. That's a decent weight loss energy intake for an
adult male. A caloric density of 2.0 kcal/g isn't particularly low, nor is it
particularly high. It's quite representative of normal food.

I have experienced highly trained, endurance and anaerobic athletes who
have performed to par, who have controlled their weight by the 2PD.

I have also experienced athletes who have exceeded their weight, on
purpose, (offensive tackles for one)by purposefully choosing to weigh
out 3 or more pounds of food daily.

Chung isn't really saying anything other than: eat a reasonable amount of
normal food. That's not enough to qualify him as sane, or even intelligent, of
course.

The charges of insanity, etc come from those who wish to disparage the
2PD for whatever self-enabling agendas.

In truth, as you have pointed out, the diet will work and the detractors
come off as drooling morons with childlike tantrums.

But remember the message from 1980's seatbelt education?

``You can learn a lot from a dummy''.

Dummy or not, the message is greater than the messenger (if you consider
Chung and I "messengers").
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7